The so-called forests deal is no deal – a deal implies there was some give and take, but there is little give and a lot of take in this proposal. It is a sell-out of every Tasmanian and a complete abrogation of the Tasmanian Government’s responsibility for land use decisions, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association said today.

“It is unconscionable for a group of unelected environmental groups and industry representatives to be making decisions to lock up public resources in perpetuity,” TFGA chief executive Jan Davis said today.

“This is an outrage that the Legislative Council must throw out in its entirety.

“What this has shown is what we have always known: environmental groups don’t understand the concept of negotiation – they want it all and give nothing in return. They have achieved virtually all they sought with little compromise; whereas the industry has suffered extreme disadvantage. The sawlog cut is down to 137,000 cubic metres a year, less than half of that just a couple of years ago. The provisions for specialty timbers are simply not viable and will see the inevitable demise of this important sector. And the impact on the private forests sector, kept out of this room, will be disastrous” Ms Davis said.

“So Tasmanians are expected to write off the vital forest industry, at the cost of economic diversity, regional community security and jobs; and the Greens get another 560,000 ha of reserves, that the state can’t manage and which becomes a wildfire hazard on our doorstep.”

Ms Davis said the 2010 Statement of Principles had been swept aside as key requirements outlined in those principles have been abandoned. As a result, as the TFGA had argued from the first day, private forests will be severely impacted.

“The 1600 private owners with forests covering private 27 per cent of Tasmania’s native forest estate were given no say in this process.

Ms Davis said the stated intention of both governments and the signatories to the Statement of Principles was that private forest owners would not be impacted by the outcomes of the initiative. This clearly implied that the asset value of private native forests would not be impaired. Yet, over the process, private forest income has fallen by more than 90%.

“By reducing the sawmilling industry infrastructure, reducing the critical mass of the industry resource and, at the same time, taking away Ta Ann’s security, they are signing the death warrant for private forest businesses.

“Farmers have real skin in the game, yet we have all been sold down the river,” she said. “This is wrong, wrong, wrong.”

• Terry Edwards: Forest industry compromise paves way for peace deal

Tasmania’s forest industries have welcomed a move by environmental groups to support a peace
deal put forward by the sector, designed to bring an end to Tasmania’s 30-year war in the forests.
Spokesman for the industry and CEO of Forest Industry Association of Tasmania, Terry Edwards,
said the proposal put to the environmental groups on November 2 had seen a 22.5 per cent
reduction in annual wood supply to 137,000 m3 and it was this move by the sector which had
secured the deal.

“We want to make it clear that it is the timber industry that has made the agreement possible,” Mr
Edwards said.

“We have agreed to considerable conservation outcomes from this proposal in an attempt to
achieve an outcome to this process and provide some certainty for the industry and the battle
weary Tasmanian community.

“To achieve this, we have also required very strong durability outcomes to ensure the peace in our
forests is actually achieved and remains into the future.”

Mr Edwards said it was now up to both State and Federal Governments to make the deal work and
find the money to effectively implement the agreement.

“This is not about the interests of any particular individual or organisation, but actually about
ensuring the best prospect of an outcome that Tasmanians and the industry want and need.”

Mr Edwards said for two-and-a-half-years the industry had been in turmoil while negotiations
continued and as a result the Tasmanian community was suffering, so he hoped some certainty for
timber workers, their families, the people that support them and the broader Tasmanian
population could be achieved.

“The timber industry has moved significantly and effectively on this proposal, largely giving
environmental groups what they have been asking for and in return that this does mean peace in
our forests and that that peace be lasting,” Mr Edwards said.

Environment groups have today signed the Tasmanian Forests Agreement together with the
state’s forestry industry and the forestry workers’ union.

“Our agreement will protect native forests, support workers and restructure the industry
towards a sustainable future, with widespread benefits to the Tasmanian economy,” said Dr
Phill Pullinger, Director of Environment Tasmania.

“This agreement provides a comprehensive conservation outcome, with reserves that
include iconic forests in the Styx, Upper Florentine and Weld Valleys, the temperate
rainforests of the Tarkine and the unique forests of West Wellington and the Blue Tier,” Dr
Pullinger said.

Vica Bayley, the Wilderness Society’s Tasmanian Campaign Director, said all sides had made
concessions to secure a final agreement and urged all Tasmanian’s to look carefully at the
agreement to see what it delivers for them.

“The final agreement has a reduced reserve area to meet agreed wood supply levels and
support Tasmania’s specialty timber sector, but still delivers for conservation in the iconic
areas the Tasmanian community has worked for decades to protect,” Mr Bayley said.

“Responsibility now rests with the Tasmanian Parliament to implement the agreement and
give Tasmania the opportunity to move on from decades of conflict.”

CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, Don Henry, pointed to the long-term
benefits the agreement will deliver to Tasmania.

“Once approved by the state’s parliament, the agreement will trigger at least $100 million in
Federal Government funding to assist the industry’s transition to a sustainable future and to
diversify the Tasmanian economy.”

“If implemented, the agreement will be remembered as a socially, economically and
environmentally robust solution that has been achieved by old foes putting differences
aside and getting on the front foot to find common ground to protect jobs and the
environment,” Mr Henry said.

• A NEW BEGINNING: BROWN

Today’s Tasmanian forests agreement is a new beginning on Tasmania’s way to becoming one of the world’s most celebrated centres of wild and scenic beauty.

Speaking personally, Dr Brown said ‘I want to help on the day when we open the visitors’ centre in the Styx Valley of the Giants, which under this deal will get World Heritage protection’.

‘He said the Liberals are spoilers who want to rip up any protection for Tasmania’s forests and wildlife.’

The strongest plus here is the agreed process for 129,000 hectares of World Heritage protection – even though this is less than one tenth of the current area of forest under Forestry Tasmania’s control. The biggest negative is pumping more taxpayers’ money into logging instead of the much better job prospects in tourism, hospitality, agriculture and design-based manufacturing.

‘The greatest economic value in these forests is in their carbon, if we keep them alive and upright.’

• The Tasmanian Minerals Council’s position on the IGA is unchanged by the “deal” on forestry.

The Minerals Council is opposed to new reserves.

“We believe the right balance on reserves was struck in Tasmania in 1998 and there is no need, other than political need, for new reserves,” the executive director of the Minerals Council, Terry Long, said today.

“For that reason, and as we have foreshadowed many times in the past, we will encourage the Legislative Council to reject the IGA Bill.”

Tasmania’s forest industry can now look forward to a strong and secure future, with an agreement reached between industry, union and community representatives and peak environmental groups.

The Premier, Lara Giddings, and Deputy Premier, Bryan Green welcomed the agreement, which is the culmination of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement process.

“Out of adversity comes opportunity and what has been handed to us today is a momentous opportunity to heal decades of division,” Ms Giddings said.

“Tasmanians are tired of the conflict that has raged for decades - they just want this fixed.

“The Government is grasping the opportunity to move beyond past conflict and the old-style politics of the Tasmanian Liberals and look positively to the future.

“This agreement gives us the opportunity to secure jobs and rebuild regional communities that have suffered from the worst downturn in the history of the State’s forest industry.

“It secures a sustainable forest industry for the future and preserves significant additional areas of native forest with important conservation values.

“Most importantly it paves the way for increased market access for Tasmanian forest products and sets out an exciting future for diversified timber products.

“This agreement has been reached by the very people who have been fighting on the front line of the forest conflict.

“Industry stakeholders have signed this agreement because it gives them the certainty they need for the future. Importantly it provides certainty for both resource supply and market access.”

Ms Giddings said Cabinet had met to consider the agreement and update legislation, which will be debated in the Lower House today.

“The Tasmanian Government is acting on the request of signatories that we move urgently to secure the funding allocated through the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.

“We will also work closely with the Australian Government to implement the Agreement.”

Mr Green said if passed the legislation would unlock $100 million in federal funding for forest industry diversification and other economic development opportunities, along with additional funds for reserve management.

“The Tasmanian Forests Agreement has already delivered more than $100 million in assistance to displaced forest workers and contractors, and has created hundreds of jobs through economic development projects around the state,” Mr Green said.

“This agreement has the potential not only to secure the forest industry’s future, but to diversify and strengthen the broader economy.

“I urge all members of Parliament to look beyond the politics of this issue and to grasp this unique opportunity.”

Mr Green said the State Government’s motivation has always been to support the forest industry through a period of unprecedented upheaval.

“The Tasmanian Forest Agreement is the response to the downturn in the forest industry, it is not the cause.

“This process has been difficult and that it has inevitably involved compromise. “But industry stakeholders have recognised that doing nothing in response to these challenges is not an option.

“They would not have signed this agreement unless they believed, as I do, that it will secure the jobs and opportunities for the forest industry for the future.”

Ms Giddings and Mr Green paid tribute to the tireless work of the signatories and all those who have contributed to the lengthy TFA process.

“All Tasmanians, whatever their views on the forests debate, should acknowledge the hard work, persistence and determination of the Signatories to see this incredibly difficult process through to a successful outcome,” Ms Giddings said.

“They are all decent, hardworking people who have genuinely been working in the best interests of the people they represent and the broader community.

“They have achieved what most never would have thought possible just a few years ago.”

Key elements of the agreement include:

• A legislated minimum supply of 137,000 cubic metres of high quality sawlog and the establishment of Permanent Timber Production Zones;

• An additional 37,954 hectares designated as a Specialty Craft and Timber Zones, along with peeler wood supply to meet contractual arrangements;

• Support for Forest Stewardship Council certification of remaining native forestry activity;

• 504,012 hectares of native forest will be given legislative protection in two tranches - 395,199 hectares after enactment of legislation and 108,813 hectares by March 2015, pending the satisfaction of durability clauses;

• An additional 20,183 hectares will be designated as a once-off log, restore and reserve area, and 1,228 hectares of log-of-last-resort zone.

• Christine Milne: It’s an opportunity but there are some very big gaps

I just wanted to comment quickly on Tas forests. In Tasmania it’s been announced that an agreement has been reached in relation to the long-standing conflict over saving Tasmania’s high conservation and fantastic forests.

It’s an opportunity but there are some very big gaps in what has been announced so far. I haven’t yet seen the details and of course the devil is always in the details. Much has been said about 504,000 hectares being protected, but there is a question as to whether logging is going to continue to be allowed in any of those 504,000 hectares and for how long a transition might take place.

There are also a serious questions about the management of forests into the future and particularly Forestry Tasmania’s role and how the Commonwealth might become involved in funding and also, thirdly, how the forests will be managed in terms of the forest practices that are allowed.

There are a lot of things we want to do but the key thing for the Greens is to get these areas into permanent protection, and one thing we will be absolutely prioritising is getting a world heritage nomination for our precious forests. I have been campaigning for the eastern boundary of the world heritage area to go into the world heritage nomination and into permanent protection for many many years since the mid-1980s. So it would be fantastic to finally see those brilliant forests in world heritage and that’s going to be a priority as this is negotiated in coming weeks. From here ...

• Rosemary Norwood, Friends of the Great Western Tiers:

Friends of the Great Western Tiers, based in the Meander Valley region strongly support forest negotiators from both industry and environment groups who agreed to protect new areas of the Great Western Tiers with high conservation values as part of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement.

“We would like to thank the negotiators from all sides of the debate for their marathon effort to achieve this agreement” said group spokesperson Ms Norwood of Jackeys Marsh.

“Many of our members, myself included, have worked for over 30 years for greater recognition and protection of the flora and fauna of the iconic Tiers escarpment forests overlooking the Meander Valley and Northern Midlands.

“We welcome the opportunity to move on from the divisive conflict between logging and conservation in our region. We will be able to take this long-awaited opportunity to improve both our community spirit and business potential if conservationists see core areas protected and forestry operators see their products respected and are able to go about their business without confrontation”, she said.

Friends of the Great Western Tiers look forward to working with the whole community to pursue regional solutions and new job opportunities flowing this agreement. The group have been working on new regional development initiatives and discussed the tourism potential of a Great Western Tiers National Park with local Legislative Council member Greg Hall.

“This agreement is historic. For the first time in living memory, traditional antagonists have managed to agree on a shared vision about the size and shape of a future forestry industry”

“If State and Federal governments deliver on their promise to implement this agreement in full, we believe our community will join others around the state in recognizing and benefiting from the agreement’s win-win outcomes”, she concluded.

Environment Tasmania, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society agree the legislation passed by state parliament this morning to implement the Tasmanian Forests Agreement (TFA) sets Tasmania on the path to resolve the forests conflict.

”This is the first step toward the full implementation of the agreement so that it can start to provide real benefits for workers, the state’s economy and native forests,” said Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Don Henry.

“The industry, union and environment groups all support the business, employment and conservation outcomes of the agreement we have signed together,” Mr Henry said.

“We think the TFA is the best way to now bring an end to Tasmania’s forests conflict, protect important native forests, and build a strong, sustainable timber industry”

“The TFA will support workers who have suffered through the forest industry’s challenges and creates an opportunity for sustainable growth with secure, decent jobs into the future,”
said Dr Phill Pullinger, Director of Environment Tasmania.

Once implemented, more than $100 million in Federal Government funding will support the industry’s necessary transition to a value-added, plantation-based future and provide opportunities to diversify the state’s economy, generating new jobs.

The Wilderness Society’s Tasmanian Campaign Manager said now it is up to Tasmania’s Upper House to review the legislation and decide whether to allow the industry to transition, workers to be supported and forests to be protected.

“There are many who will try to block this - the best opportunity Tasmania has had to resolve the forests conflict. We hope the Upper House can seize this rare opportunity for Tasmania to move on and for the forests industry to make products all Australians can be proud of,” Mr Bayley said.

Upon scrutiny of the forest agreement environment groups Still Wild Still Threatened and the Huon Valley Environment Center are today raising concerns about the certainty for the protection of forests.

Please download a copy of a critique of the agreement by SWST and HVEC:

“It is far too early to be claiming a win for the environment based on this agreement, because the forests remain under threat. Even if it is passed by the Legislative Council, the deal offers no clear time frames for protection. And in fact, it allows for the continued logging of those areas that are ear-marked for protection. I have made the commitment to stay in the Observer Tree until the forest is protected and as this is still uncertain, I will be remaining in the tree” said Miranda Gibson of Still Wild Still Threatened.

“We should not be overstating the real figures in this agreement. To say that there are over half a million hectares protected is misleading. The 395,000ha, which will make up the first tranche, is the only figure that is likely to even receive protection, yet even that remains uncertain. And in addition will eroded by a further logging. The agreement leaves little room for confidence that the rest will ever see protection. Even this 395,000 remains uncertain, being subject to a range of clauses, durability reports, rescheduling and ongoing logging in the meantime” said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Center said Jenny Weber of the Huon Valley Environment Center.

“This agreement could have been an opportunity to move Tasmania forward, but instead it feels like we are going backwards. Entrenching ongoing native forest logging and in particular a return to woodchipping. This is a part of the industry that has already caused massive destruction to Tasmania’s environment and proven to be a failure in today’s economy” said Miranda Gibson.

“This agreement locks in woodchipping, clearfelling and Permanent Production Zones for logging of native forests, yet fails to guarantee secure proteciton for the forest. Clauses place conservation outcomes secondary to wood supply” said Jenny Weber

“We will continue to speak up for the forests, because this agreement cannot be seen as the end of all environmental progress in Tasmania. Tasmania would set a dangerous precedent to allow this deal to be used to silence community engagement and public debate around such a critical issue” said Miranda Gibson.

“Our scrutiny of this agreement has revealed controversial concessions made to the native forestry industry that should be undergoing a rapid transition out of native forests.

Certification of controversial logging practices, maintaining Forestry Tasmania in its current form, a subsidised propaganda machine for the signatories to endorse native forest products in the market, exempting logging from an upgrade in the forest practices code and endorsement of industrial scale wood chipping are major hindrances to a solution,” Jenny Weber said.

It may be remembered that the 2011 IGA signed by the PM and Premier actually increased the sawlog quota from 300,000 to 420,000 cubic metres PA. This will be an interesting figure to watch because the industry can inflate it astronomically with their inevitable ‘residues’. We all know these ‘residues’ were driving the whole woodchip trade in the Gunns era.
And what of the famous ‘its all about getting Gunns pulp mill up’?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 21/11/12 at 07:27 PM

I truly hope that the ENGOs are being sufficiently careful. There has always been a danger of their somewhat predictable position in these negotiations being ruthlessly played by opponents in government and industry.

Whilst everyone feels desperate for a deal after such a drawn out saga, it is surely better to have no deal than one that either the Legislative Council or a future LNP state government would renege upon once the IGA gravy train delivers the next $100M round of taxpayer funding.

World heritage protection needs to pass through legislation before any further industry payouts are made.

Posted by Kev Rothery on 21/11/12 at 07:42 PM

One would believe a real deal has been concluded when the young lady comes down from her tree, Markets for Change closes down- and the other sundry protest groups pack it in-permanently.
Unfortunately, if those things did happen it would mean the forests have-effectively- been abandoned by the timber industry.On the other hand, if those things don’t happen- where’s the peace?
Lara just wants the money.

Posted by TGC on 21/11/12 at 08:33 PM

The significant figure to watch is Ta Ann’s wood supply agreement with Forestry Tasmsania to supply 265,000 cubic metresper year of high quality peeler billet logs from long-rotation regeneration native forests until 2027.

Evan Rolley’s comment about Ta Ann’s future being ‘on a knife edge’ is rather apt considering that’s precisely how they peel these native forest logs into veneers.

Posted by David Obendorf on 21/11/12 at 09:14 PM

So we are going to shove this deal through the house and into law very very fast so nobody has time to scrutinise it and discover what a complete mess it really is.

The only surprise is that they did not recall parliament on christmas eve to do it.

Absolutely bloody typical of a government with no moral compass, no integrity and no respect for the voting public or transparent public administration.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 21/11/12 at 09:16 PM

I reckon you can bet on one thing with certainty: If it is allowed to get away with it, the Tasmanian forest so-called-industry will acquire as much subsidy as possible, for as little real profitability as it can get away with. Any agreement actually needs to be on the basis that the industry will henceforth stand on its own two feet, pay its own expenses, make a fair profit, bear its own risks and pay a fair royalty such that we the people profit from the use of our forests.

Posted by Mark Hanna on 21/11/12 at 09:16 PM

When is it the right time to be giving trust to the untrustables?
This decades long war being waged to protect our forested environments from the ruthless pillaging by certain central figures in this State who have access to dumbed down logging contractors and logging firm’s employees should never have ever gotten to this point, but for the unwholesome lusting desire by the former Gunns Ltd to empower itself upon this State, in which is now being perpetuated by this very State’s government logging enterprises.

One could ask to the why of the improper rationales given out by louldy inflating persons such as Terry Edwards, in which he continually hurls his angry demands and unsupportable opinions at the indifferent negative news-hungry media hounds, inevitably it is all supposed to be for the benefit of 1% of Tasmania’s workforce, but no, that is not what is at stake in this corrupted collusive contest of power.
Ultimately this forestry havoc-ing orchestrated debacle is but a part of the sly mechanisms to continue access to the major chunk of the State taxpayer funds, formerly and still so comfortably enjoyed by these small number of shyster greed-mongers and their oily associates.
These that make up the small number of colluding gangster-like greedsters and this State’s economy manipulators, can oft’ be found attending ad hoc business meetings held at any of the more exclusive and expensive eateries in the top end of town and also in attendance at the more elite social watering-holes in and around Launceston and Hobart Town.
They are known by their attendances and associations held exclusive with each one of the other, yet they can in fact be detected and identified by the more astute and cerefully aware among our citizens, for they are in fact quite visible.

Posted by William Boeder on 22/11/12 at 12:27 AM

Thats right Lala, ram it thru without scrutiny and hope none of us notice. You silly little twit.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 22/11/12 at 05:57 AM

Signatures from ythe forest industry will now test how much the Legislative Council is prepared to support that industry in its restructuring.

MLC Hall has put his position of not supporting change in this industry leaving open the possibility that in another place the rules are changed denying the industry its chance to modernize with the RFA governing its activities and widespread world heritage nomination making his chamber less relevant.

Tell me again why are we paying 15 nay sayers who block opportunities to favour dated positions to the detriment of Tasmania.

Posted by phill Parsons on 22/11/12 at 06:35 AM

Unfortunately putting a figure on the amount of sawlog guaranteed to the industry is meaningless. The guarantee only applies to Category 1 and 3 sawlogs (first quality old growth and regrowth). That is the minimum quantity, they have not met the minimum for the last couple of years but it is always allowable to go over that amount. It has happened many times in the past that Cat1 and 3 logs have been supplied well over the 300 thousand tonne level.
Ta Ann actually get around 300 thousand tonnes of their logs to make sure that their quota is supplied.
So in actual fact the sawlog supply will as Karl says go up to around 460 thousand tonnes. The rest of the forest will be left to rot on a wharf, under a pile of dirt or we will pay the Chinese to take it away.
The deal is fraught with danger, the ENGO’s are dealing with very slippery operators who have many years of negotiating with governments to secure millions of dollars of funding to do the same thing.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 22/11/12 at 06:45 AM

What a sham if this goes through. Were the wood supply figures in the IGA “non-core” guarantees?

The figure of 37000 ha being available for special timber harvesting will result in a minimum of 70% reduction in specialty timbers - probably more considering the areas already set aside for special timber production have been laid claim to.

Verification of special timber quantity? What verification. The IVG was provided with factual information on special timber harvest quantities (a fraction under 17,000 cubic metres per annum with some species demand higher than what was provided. Prof West gave a personal assurance that special timber users would be consulted down to individual business level on quantities required but this has never occurred and is still listed as “ongoing work”.

My industry is feeling the pinch already. Celery top pine is the most used boat building timber in Tasmania at 42% of all timber used. In 2010/11, there were 2026 cubic metres of high quality celery saw log sold. In 2011/12 this figure was down to 310 cubic metres, mainly due to the protection afforded whilst talks were ongoing. According to FT last week there is only one couple scheduled to harvest next year with a possible 100 cubic metres of celery in it, but this coupe is in the reserve areas so will most likely not be cut.

I have spoken with the major millers of celery and no-one has had logs for some time and there is certainly none on the horizon. one of the millers is closing his mill due to no logs being available.

So here we have a very important industry to Tasmania - both economically and historically - being decimated by the sitting government. I bet one of these useless pollies will stand up and laud the wooden boat festival and every other wooden boat launch to get there mugs on the TV.

It is not just boat builders who use celery either. A quick walk around Salamanca last weekend showed many craftsmen use this wonderful timber.

The resources minister went as far as to tell a different tale to parliament last week. He claims that there is a stockpile of celery top pine for boat builders which stretches the truth a very long way. There is no stockpile unless you think 4 cubic metres is a stockpile - (we would use that in a good year) and the quality is unknown.

The Greens want my industry to source our timber from FSC certified private forests. Whilst I would be more than happy to do can anyone tell me where in Tasmania we can get FSC certified celery top?

It is completely irresponsible of government to ignore the value adding industry for the sake of a few preferences at the next election.

Posted by Andrew Denman on 22/11/12 at 07:59 AM

We hear about hectares of this, hectares of that. Dollars here and dollars there. But we still don’t hear about a totally new forestry law that enshrines a triple bottom line forestry policy.

A policy, which addresses ecology, economy and society in equal measure. A philosophy that recognises the need for “close-to-nature” silvicultural methods as represented by organisations such as “Pro Silva”. Methods that are being successfully practiced in ever more countries or areas of the globe where the forests are kept bio-diverse, chemical free and produce quality wood for thriving timber industries as well a all the other benefits (water, erosion, micro climate, flora, fauna, longevity, recreation, visuals, stability).

The mismanagement is bound to go on if the fundamentals continue to be ignored. Simple really: you cannot build a palace if the foundations are absent. Or in techno speak: You need a new operating system, not just more apps.

Posted by Peter Brenner on 22/11/12 at 08:06 AM

Remember it is all about the politics of getting elected.

Any agreement will have nothing to do with the general good,for most of the the players are both disreputable and or dishonest.

FT and Gunns stole the first 50 million within seconds using our colluding Pollies.

The small remaining areas of Tasmanian high quality standing timber will now be sacrificed in the interests of a political point scoring agreement.

Posted by john hawkins on 22/11/12 at 08:17 AM

After the failure of the peace talks last month the environmental movement showed FIAT, and others, just what it was capable of doing. We will give you a war you won’t believe, sort of thing.

And it worked. They came back to the negotiating table and found peace.

500,000 hectares of forests saved. A great result.

Posted by Ron on 22/11/12 at 09:37 AM

Relax Folks the Upper House will vote the deal down. They will do so because they remain at war with the Labor/Green govt and are determined NOT to pass any significant Green Legislation. The The Liberal party flavoured Upper House will justify its voting down of forests deal legislation by arguing they are doing the job they were elected to: - “Representing the views of our electors”. The Upper House will hold fast to this while privately rationalising that its only 15 Months till Tasmania gets a Liberal Majority government which will roll back the forests deal anyway. If things do play out as i say then one could argue that Will Hodgman’s Liberal have successfully killed the Forests Deal by proxy.

Posted by Pilko on 22/11/12 at 10:46 AM

As I had indicated long before .Lara is desperate for the short term dollars , which are going to flow straight to Ta ann in some way shape or form .

The Greens will see this as a win and Ta ann will not exist in the future . This is just another Hybrid of the Gunns Negotiations. What is shows is the complete lack of any negotiating skills of Government departments . Specifically One Bryan Green and His trusted Side Kick Vadasz . School children have a stronger grasp of negotiating than them

Posted by TH on 22/11/12 at 11:04 AM

If the LegCo rejects the IGA legislation today then what alternative option are they proposing instead??

A continuation of the forestry wars?

A continuation of the politicisation of the forest industry?

Continuing damage to the Tasmanian community and political institutions?

Demonstrate to the rest of the country and the world that Tasmanians cannot work together to build a better future?

That the world is “black and white”, and if there are no losers then how can there be winners?

It really is long past time for Tasmania to show some maturity and leadership. Unless we resolve our differences and work together then we really are lost.

Will the last person to leave the State please turn off the lights!

Posted by Gordon Bradbury on 22/11/12 at 11:43 AM

Truest part of this story?

“...?”

Posted by Leonard Colquhoun on 22/11/12 at 12:08 PM

Well, contributors seem to have been so long mired in this that they can’t see that this is a real breakthrough. Its a win:win, and a compromise, and a way forward. It was hard won and involved enormous amounts of work on the detail. Everyone knows a whole lot more about how forestry works (and doesn’t work). How few people it employs. And that there is a shared wish for a new and 21st century industry along more European lines (i.e. one that doesn’t trash the resource).
I don’t know where Jan Davis is coming from, its public property, not just a “resource”, and its not locked up, its set free. We all own it and now can continue to own it for perpetuity. Its not going to end up as cardboard boxes at the bottom of Tokyo Bay.
We have to let the MLC’s know that if they reject this they will inherit the endless scorn of everyone who passed grade nine on this island and understands what is at stake. But apart from that, we should be grateful, and blessed. Its a victory for hard work and good sense and we should be proud of it.

Posted by Anne Cadwallader on 22/11/12 at 12:10 PM

The Upper House WILL kill deal. By the time the forests deal hits floor of Leg Co we are only looking at 15 months till next election & polls are showing Liberal Majority govt is a dead certainty.
Upper House President Sue Smith has already flagged ( by demanding that Tony Burke take back his Dec 31 IGA funding deadline) the Leg Co’s intention to delay any vote.
Pro logging MLC’s will have an eye on the next state election. The longer they can delay the vote and the more the Libs strengthen in the polls the weaker the case for the proposed forests deal.
This is the way Upper House will privately rationalise its NO vote. Labor & the Greens will say that in voting down forests legislation the Upper House is denying Tasmania over $100M funding. Upper House pro logging MLC’s will argue production forests can easily make that money if not locked up. Question is will Federal Government sweeten funding to heap pressure on undecided MLC’s?

Harris, Hall, Dean, Goodwin, Wagner are immovable. I would be shocked if Wilkinson votes for the deal. That leaves 1 vote to make 7-7 which would trigger Sue Smith’s votes. Smith will vote against deal.

When Hodgman wins majority govt, FIAT & rest of industry will jump on board Hodgman plan and Tasmania will be at war in earnest. Will Hodgman has already said logging industry can keep all money flowing through IGA while he also rescinds reserves and restarts production. Another round of public money will have flowed to the Tasmanian logging industry without any new forest reserves. This is the Hodgman pledge. Hodgman will also be desperate to find someone to build Tamar Valley Pulp Mill.

Therefore its impossible to draw any other conclusion than to say that under a Hodgman Liberal Majority Government Tasmania’s Forest Wars will be worse than ever. The Liberal’s demonstrable contempt for the environmental view and the Libs publically declared unwillingness to make ANY sort of compromise on Forests will drive Tasmanians back to the trenches in earnest. People can call me bias for saying that but i challenge anyone to show me how my scenario is wrong. Will Hodgmans Liberal’s will try to manage dissent with an Iron Fist (new draconian law’s and probably putting Liberal aligned figures into senior positions in the Police & Courts) and vilification which will only exacerbate problem. If this happens every member of the Upper House that votes down the forests legislation will have played their part. No matter what your opinion is of the proposed forests peace deal this an extremely sad prospect for Tasmania.

Posted by Pilko on 22/11/12 at 12:24 PM

At 2.20 pm today the Legislative Council meets in camera in a Parliamentary Committee Room before returning to the Legislative Council to hear from the Leader of the Government in the Upper House, Mr Farrell at 2.30 pm on an important matter to be put to the Council.

Go to the Parliament website and listen in real time to the audio discussion on this important matter.

Then in the right hand column click on audio from the Legislative Council

Posted by David Obendorf on 22/11/12 at 12:27 PM

#17…If the LegCo rejects the IGA legislation today then what alternative option are they proposing instead??

They are proposing what the Liberals are proposing. Business as usual by the usual suspects and criminalisation of those that speak up against it. People like Miranda will find themselves bankrupted and/or in gaol

Whatever happens the sure outcome will not be in favour of ‘the enemy’

call me cynical…...

Posted by moo on 22/11/12 at 01:22 PM

For a start, we must remember that the peace talks are actually a sham with no statutory powers to do anything but make recommendations to the likes of Bryan and Lara.

Then we have the demonstrated reality that FT and its clients can ignore the law with impunity, even to the point of gifting State forest to its mates or itself. FT and FIAT have not yet renounced their contention that new reserves are conditional on them not wanting them for harvest immediately.

As an ornament to the farce we have a putative agriculture spokesperson, Jan Davis, screeching about public forests “locked up” in reserves, but not about it being eradicated by private companies at public expense.

Mentally, the state is flat broke.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 22/11/12 at 01:25 PM

Either the Legislative Council is bunkered in the Committee Room or they’ve pulled the plug on the audio-on-demand from actual Upper House chamber after 2.30 pm,. It’s now 3.20 pm and there still no sound from the Legislative Council.

What’s going on?

PS Update: Farrell stated that a matter was to be brought forward to ‘next Tuesday’. So it looks like the Parliament might be sitting next week! Leg. Council at least.

Posted by David Obendorf on 22/11/12 at 02:22 PM

#20 Yup, that’s pretty much how I see it too Pilko. The LegCo is stacked with reps who are Liberal in all but name, and even if your (and mine) assessment is proved wrong, Will Hodgman has never made any secret of his intention to tear up any forest peace deal that may be made when the Libs are returned to power.

Since recent polls suggest the chances of this situation occurring are distressingly and depressingly high, then the ink on the deal will have barely dried before Tasmania is once again riven with community dissent over its forests.

And nowhere has mention been made of the proposed pulp mill, yet these IGA talks were specifically initiated to smooth the way for the pulp mill. We know that. Lara has indeed said as much more than once. Gunns may have gone, but the pulp mill remains a state and federally approved project - albeit with some significant legal question marks over the validity of its permits, that have still to be resolved in court.

Both Liberals and Labor continue to stubbornly (and bizarrely) support the pulp mill, so we can assume that if and when Will holds the reins of government he will be doing his best to ensure it is built. Never mind he’ll be doing so in the teeth of entrenched and determined community opposition. He knows this which is why he is also preparing the way to introduce some draconian ways and means designed to silence any public dissent, or views which do not coincide with that of the Liberals.

So much for democracy in this beleaguered and tortured state.

Posted by Anne on 22/11/12 at 02:40 PM

#19 Anne. I don’t think anyone knows what Jan Davis is on about. Jan least of all.
The fact that the agreement bodies are not elected is kind of the point and irrelevant at the same time. The LegCo who will or will not pass the recommendations as law is elected.
If PTRs are going to hurt then perhaps they need to speak to Ta Ann who have said they don’t want the Nitens thats been planted and blame FT
and whoever set up the scheme for the poor species selection, non-existent pruning regime and short harvest rotation that has excluded them from being viable for Ta Ann’s purposes.
It has already been established that the forest industry is not as ‘vital’ for jobs as thought by most, is already a money losing ‘write-off’ and economic diversity, rather than just surviving on woodchip is exactly what we are trying to re-introduce. Environmental groups actually conceded around 17000 hectare of reserves in the process when they didn’t really need to. Industry were on their knees due to the high aussie dollar, poor financial management and unwillingness to change in the face of new global certified timber demands.
As for forests locked up in reserves and wildfire hazards? Change the record Jan, its broken. If we need to look at the legislation regarding fuel load management in reserves, then lets do it but its pretty irrelevant to this broad agreement.
Methinks Jan is upset about the ‘statement of principles being swept aside’ because the inclusion of ‘consideration of a pulp mill’ was vital for all those hairbrain nitens plantations.

For those yelping about sawlog quotas increasing, I thought that was the point? Less woodchip and a return to higher value sawlogs?
I must admit being sceptical about the sudden turn around after talks collapsed then LaLa’s little handwringing ‘now, now everybody, lets all just get along, we need the cash’ visit.
How agreement just magically materialised after 2 years of failed negotiation is anybodies guess and I look forward to reading the final details. It begs the question why Lala didn’t ride in and save the day sooner?
Other than that, I am like Anne quietly hopeful that this is finally a step forward, despite various squeals and moans from the ever present naysayers and Hanrahans.
Of course there will be finer details to figure out but another cliche comes to mind. A journey of a thousand miles ........etc.

Posted by Sue DeNim on 22/11/12 at 02:53 PM

Thank you Peter Brenner @ #12,
I have listened to the voices and watched again this afternoon the three political parties argument in Parliament’s Lower House I can keep my comments at this stage short with excellent summary statement as provided by Peter Brenner:
“The mismanagement is bound to go on if the fundamentals continue to be ignored. Simple really: you cannot build a palace if the foundations are absent. Or in techno speak: You need a new operating system, not just more apps.”
That’s it as neither Labor, nor the Greens or the Liberals in Tasmania got real solutions how to responsibly manage the values on our unique Island .
Will Hodgman made some very valid points however, he just highlighted the secret, elitist, exclusive protest this process involved.
But what would he and his party do I have asked them recently - nothing meaningful in response so far. Hodgman & Co. have still no realistic proposal, no vision what a successful forest industry looks like. “An evergreen RFA”? What a hollow, ignorant argument, it does ignore the fact that the industry was run into the ground by over harvesting beyond sustainable level with waste blowing over our heads every year as smoke clouds.
It is a complete disgrace and that is why I and my fellow Members, Friends and Supporters of Timber Workers For Forests Inc still have to watch the whole process and the forest industries and the whole economy sliding further and further into deeper trouble.
The FSC process is about open and transparent exchange of information and the exclusive IGA process was undermining the spirit of the international FSC process.
It will take a paradigm shift in the mindset of our Society; it will take some time more,
This deal has no foundation to build on.
Look for some alternative vision: http://www.twff.org.au

Posted by Frank Strie on 22/11/12 at 04:52 PM

Forest industry will get their money. Then the deal will fall over without any conservation outcome. Just like every other time. Bank on it.

Posted by Big Sim on 22/11/12 at 06:08 PM

Lets hope someone in the upper house still believes the public are entitled to a voice when the disposition of publlic assets is decided.

It is a well known fact that the Greens and their protesting supporters will stop at nothing till at least 572,000 ha is permanently locked up as Reserves immediately as the outcome of the IGA is “becoming clearer”.
In fact it is as clear as mud. Ta Ann a key player in the IGA has not been offered an ongoing reduced allocation for regrowth unlike the hardwood sawmillers at 137,000 M3 pa of cat1 and cat3 logs.
At a rough guess I suspect that Ta Ann wish to maintain its 256,000M3 pa of regrowth peeler supply to remain viable in which the company could find itself in rundown mode until the supply become exhausted by year x ?????
For public knowledge the IGA if it really has any teeth should have both Johnathon West’s verification figures and FT’s staged Five Year harvesting plans to guide the longevity of the Ta Ann’s contract till 2027 if that is possible?
Specialty timbers is another issue and I think that we will hear more about from our scribe George shortly, fair enough too!

It will be interesting in State Parliament when Giddings Labor and the Greens support the latest IGA moves by finding that a major backlash from the broader rural community overnight will stand in the way of validating an acceptable decision by Ms Giddings and her Labor/ Green pals.
Of cause the reality is that the Greens want to stop ALL native forest harvesting, knowing that is their ultimate objective the Liberal MLC’s will reject the latest IGA claim preventing legislation to transfer State Forest into Reserves.
Pity March 2014 is not closer, although the need for a change in government is becoming much clearer.

Posted by Robin Halton on 22/11/12 at 08:03 PM

I would just like to say to Andrew Denman at 7:59 thousands of tonnes of celery top pine have been burnt in windrows over the past 10 years. That is very, very sad. Now there is maybe a shortfall of celery top please say that you told FT to salvage and not burn it.
And now to today - you quote this “In 2011/12 this figure was down to 310 cubic metres, mainly due to the protection afforded whilst talks were ongoing.”
Exactly what protection? Apart from moving some foresting out of some coupes there was no moratorium at all during the talks.

Posted by Carol Rea on 22/11/12 at 08:06 PM

The Legislative Council is to be recalled on Tuesday 11 December and the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Bill will be debated by the Councillors on Wednesday, 12 December, 2012.

Posted by David Obendorf on 22/11/12 at 08:35 PM

Speaking of minorities, the timber industry has reduced itself to one, the mining industry is one and yet the Leg Co will represent them.

Posted by phill Parsons on 22/11/12 at 09:13 PM

There are only so many times a brain can be bashed against a wall before it becomes irreversibly brain dead.

Is this Van Diemens Tazwegianism into perpetuity you fucks? Just like the flogging the innocent Thylacene superstition?

Woodchip is commodity, is worthless offal, is Third World.

Posted by Tigerquoll on 22/11/12 at 09:17 PM

This is not the best agreement by any means. Peter Brenner and Frank Strie are right: we need a different conceptualisation of forestry. But we are not going to get that from the present negotiations. But at least this provides a halt to the present mess and time for a rethink. The parties have spent huge amounts of time and angst in trying to reconcile one of the most divisive and costly confrontations in Tasmania’s history and we should give them credit for that. And so should the Legislative Council. To knock this down would be wilfully destructive. Give it a go. No one (except apparently the Liberals for their own negativistic reasons) wants to return to the strife, expense and destructiveness of the past. The LC, if they knock this back, will have shown their anachronistic uselessness and if they do, they will show us exactly why the Upper House should be abolished.

Posted by John Biggs on 22/11/12 at 09:17 PM

#28. Big Sim I do believe you have identified the ultimate plot that will be the result of all this constant hedging and haranguing by the logging proponents to try and weasel another fat package of Federal funds into their main players pockets, followed by an as good as a ‘no-loss of State territory outcome’ for themselves.

One should ask the leopard how often he inclines to change his spots, rather than the people of Tasmania ‘capitulate to this suddenly changed- new and caring cluster of former misleading obfuscating spin spielers?’
An example in which one should remember is that of the Calabrian characters that have long held their trademark code of omerta, for surely their exists something of the same ilk among the pro-logging cabal that identifies, nay typifies, that the State’s practitioners of deception and delusion are hard held to their serial swilling from the State and Federal taxpayers purse?

I would much prefer that I am wrong in all of my vivid remarks that arise from my Forestry Tasmania analytical probing forensic mind.

However, my inner questing conscious is loathe to expect the sun to suddenly begin to shine from the rear exit portal of this body, that distinctly and consistantly holds those with their leech like past and present addicted anti-regulatory habits.

Posted by William Boeder on 22/11/12 at 10:42 PM

It appears that none of the usuals bothered to read #11.

Posted by James on 22/11/12 at 11:16 PM

Giddings told parliament last night the forests peace deal legislation will make investment in pulp mill easier. Giddings says she has not & will not give up on mill.

The Tasmanian Premier believes we can have forest peace & the Tamar Valley pulp mill. Is this why they call Giddings La la???

Posted by Pilko on 22/11/12 at 11:21 PM

#26 Sue: The imperative for the ENGOs at the forest peace talks would have been that when Hodgman is elected, better there should be an agreement that has been in place for over a year. If Hodgman overturns that and environmental protest suddenly ramps up stuffing up the industry, it would leave Hodgman with egg on his face though no doubt he’d pass a law in relation to egg on his face too.

No doubt the Tas Greens realise that they’ll have no power under a Hodgman state government and hence Tas Greens wish to make Tas Labor look as good as they possibly can, i.e. to some extent the Greens are applying “ends justifies the means” and that politics is the “art of the possible” en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck

Sadly the means in this case is sacrificing some fantastic areas of reserves. But then if the Greens continue to be able to prop up Labor in a reelected Giddings state government, they’ll feel the sacrifice has been worth it in order to be able to continue implementing their plans for assisting the protection of Tasmania’s wonderful nature resources, e.g. no really disgusting highly-polluting mines in the Tarkine which of course Hodgman and particularly his more diehard supporters would have absolutely no qualms regarding.

It seems worthwhile for there to be some other environmentally-focused choice on the state election ballot paper, alongside Tas Greens. Tas Labor is never going to permit a functional Integrity Commission to operate in Tasmania, while it has any say in the matter.

Posted by Angus Bennett on 23/11/12 at 03:52 AM

Robin (#31) I’d like to know why you think a Liberal State government will make things better. Do you think continuing the forestry wars is the way to go? Will the forest industry prosper under those conditions? Will the politicians ever stop using the forest industry for political advantage, while we continue to log public forest at taxpayers expense? The answer to all this is obviously No! Yet another State election fought around the forest industry will be an absolute disaster for Tasmania. Make no mistake.

Of course the IGA wont silence all critics of the forest industry. That was never, ever going to happen. The purpose of the IGA was to BEGIN the move towards reconciliation and change. The IGA does not resolve all the issues. Far from it.

And as for the people like Kelly Wilton who think that the world will be a better place if only there is more anger and conflict, I can only feel very sad. We really have been played for fools in all of this. A political system that promotes and encourages division and dissent.

We need to rise above all of this and find a way forward. We don’t want to continue the cycle of anger and bitterness.

Posted by Gordon Bradbury on 23/11/12 at 08:07 AM

#38. James yes I did read comment #11, just to add to what I thought was now common knowledge, the current situation regarding Celery Top Pine is that a recent comment was submitted here on Tas Times, I have read where quite a volume of this fine boat-building timber is put to the torch by our Forestry Tasmania guardians of the forests.

I suspect it suits the brains trust at Forestry Tasmania to deal with the ‘one’ major recipient of logs from the our HCV forests, being Ta Ann, also supplies for Ta Ann are being sourced from shortened rotation of regrowth logs.
None of your 90 year regrowth nonsense here, even though this has long been the spiel.

The last reference to Celery Top Pine that I recall was that mature aged trees up to 400 years were best suited to the boat-builders in this State, but sadly this species along with the apiarists favourite species, Leatherwood, is still being pushed into heaps and simply put to the torch.
Forestry Tasmania seems to have decided that the more Eucalyptus species that replace the mixed species rain forest areas the better for them, bugger the boat-builders and bugger the beekeepers and their want for aged Leather-wood trees, I suppose these 2 industries would be regarded as nuisances by the Overlords.

There is much information to be gathered from the Internet regarding Celery Top Pine when these individual species are typed into Google with the word ‘burnt’ added after the particular named tree is typed in, from these then found articles and reports therein lay the fate of these 2 particular species.
There we have it, another of the degrading outcomes at the hands of Forestry Tasmania.

Posted by William Boeder on 23/11/12 at 08:39 AM

The Kelly Wilton you mention (also attacked Bob Brown at parly house presso yesterday) organised the pro logging rally last year that canvassed homophobic placards aimed at Bob Brown.

Wilton is running a campaign out of her pro logging FB page - “Support Tassie’s Timber Industry like they’ve supported Tassie for years”. This page airs some of the worst homophobic, violent hate speech doing the rounds of Tasmanian public debate. Once again directed at Bob Brown.

The examples below were posted in the last few days and are publicly available at Kelly Wiltons “Support Tassie’s Timber Industry like they’ve supported Tassie for years” Facebook page. Type the name into FB search and start reading.

A few examples.

“...they need to let Martin Bryant loose in parliament”

“You green cunts are now fuckin with my family !!!!!! GAME ON..

“that market of change bitch peg putt and her poof friend bob brown labour won’t give up the power and there perks”

“labor and green faggots…”

“Time to go from timber milling to a slaughter house for the greenies”

“i see the fucks every day were i live and some of them smell bad”
..............

Yesterday one poster also called for the assination of Nick Mckim. The post may have been removed.

In the last 24 hours Michael Ferguson & MLC Paul Harris (described Bob Brown as “a loony”), both supporters of the page have visited the page & posted in support. Other Liberals politicians regularly post on this page.

This is the Tasmania for whom the Liberal party want an election & carte blanche on Tasmanian forests.

Considering the nature of the material i have highlighted correspondents will understand i cannot possibly put my real name this post.

Posted by Linda on 23/11/12 at 09:57 AM

Can the signatories to this mystical agreement please stop treating Tasmanians with contempt and publish a copy on the public record for us all to scrutinise.

Posted by PB on 23/11/12 at 11:33 AM

The Libs will rant and rave, but I find it a bit difficult to believe that they truly want the LC to reject the deal.

The forestry currently isn’t economically viable for two main reasons: 1) The value of the Aussie dollar and 2) the increasingly bad environmental reputation that Tassie timber has around the world.

The only real solution to 1) is to pump even more taxpayers’ dollars into the industry. Where are these going to come from? The Tassie Govt is almost broke.

The only possible solution to 2) is a forestry agreement. If the Libs get in and try to go back to the 1980s world of protests and violence, this will bring worldwide publicity of the worst possible kind, and will become even harder to sell our forestry products around the world than it is now.

If I were the Libs, I would greatly prefer to let the whole deal go through and then blame it for the continuing failure of the forestry industry into the future. And, of course, become hysterical and scream “failure”, “bad faith”, “never trust the Greenies” etc. any time anybody with the remotest connection to the environmental movement protests against any logging taking place within the terms of the agreement.

Surely it’s a much better place for the Libs to be.

Posted by meher baba on 23/11/12 at 12:03 PM

what happens if a new government sells off the forests to the highest bidder at public auction in the future.

what happens if there is a bloody good fire

who is gunna benefit from fire prevention actions & who pays - is this forever.

who is gunna put out the fires & who is gunna pay & who benefits

who is gunna pay for the insutrance risks & public liability risks

hopeless pricks.

Posted by mike seabrook on 23/11/12 at 12:06 PM

# 43, this is horrifying and totally unacceptable.

It reads like something one would expect to read coming out of the American deep south; not out of Australia!

What is wrong with these Liberal politicans who put their names to this inciting to violence! If there is an act of violence perpetuated because of this redneck rant, will we be watching the Liberal party scurrying for cover?

Don’t we have laws in this country to stop this mindless, belligerant, and extremely dangerous behaviour.

Posted by Tom Bailey on 23/11/12 at 01:22 PM

Why refuse the IGA, a sector-led attempt to refocus forestry management? Farming trees well, makes sense. Managing original native forests well, makes sense. Please, after all this time, leave the HCF alone and let them try to get on with it.

To the politicians shouting, “Reject the IGA! Reject! Reject!” (why reject a process initiated by the forest industry itself?), remember there would not be a “war” if people trusted there was good management of valuable forests in the first place, instead of trashing them. There would be no need to “lock up” HCV forests, particularly publicly owned ones, if the industry made its money without them. Can the public trust this to occur? Through the IGA, sector representatives have shown they want to make a start. Why not let them?

Before smashing down the IGA, let the naysayers, first, show me the money from managing regrown native timber coupes; Ta Ann says that’s what it’s doing, isn’t it? Show me the money from plantations; they’re going begging! But continue to clearfell original public forests at a high financial loss? No. Continue to clearfell HCV forests? No.

In the IGA, sector representatives thankfully bypassed government to reach a HCF decision acceptable to both sides. It is a rare process to date, showing more foresight, research and maturity on forestry than ever before. It took over two years, showing there was so much to learn and consider. Don’t let all this learning be wasted; no more wasted time and money!

This type of decision process, derived from the community-up, is a fairer model for future agreement on resource management in Tasmania than any cloistered, government-down policy process from the past.

Now that the long-awaited IGA agreement is available, all parts of the government should accept the decision of the sector representatives, and follow through with the legislation.

Posted by Karen on 23/11/12 at 02:51 PM

Thank god ObserverTree is being honest about the forest deal, because TWS definitely isn’t.

Under this deal native forests will be continued to be logged until 2027. Woodchipping for exports will be allowed once more. A pulp mill (with green social license) is not out of the question.

This goes against everything that TWS campaigned for, and goes against everything that its membership wants. TWS is lying to its membership by pretending this is a historic win, you only need to look at the detail of the agreement to see that it will entrench the forest industry.

I understand that they want a win, but this deal will only strengthen the hand of forestry and is not something we should support.

Posted by Mel Barnes on 23/11/12 at 03:23 PM

What happened to the “public consultations” that were promised at the start of this?

Posted by Oligily on 23/11/12 at 04:19 PM

#32 - Yes Carol, I like many in the special timbers value adding sector have tried for many years to change the way things are done. Yes I have seen celery and other fine timbers wasted but I have also seen the perceived value of these timbers begin to be realised by FT and this has gone beyond a name change from minor species to special timbers.

The reason cited by FT in their stewardship report for the reduction in minor species this past year was;

“access restrictions were applied as required by the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement”.

Obviously if they continued to log in contentious areas more than they did it had the potential to cause issues in the peace process.

There are a number of ways to effect change besides chaining yourself to a log truck or being confrontational and I believe many in our value adding industry have made a difference through working with government.

The value adding industry has always struggled to get any form of resource security - normally feast/famine cycles that are difficult to deal with. In business, most spare capital is spent buying timber in an effort to “future proof” yourself but that has the negative effect of limited funds to invest and grow your business.

What the IGA promised and what the IGA has delivered in the form of the Tasmanian Forest Agreement 2012 are certainly two different things.

The issue that is of most concern to my industry is that yet again special timbers has been relegated to the too hard basket or as William said above - “bugger the boat builders”.

The IGA promised verification of the amount of specialty timbers required by the value adding sector in clause 17. This did not occur.

Professor West personally comitted to verify the amount of special timbers required down to business level including species and quantity used per annum. This did not occur.

Burgmans’s wood resource scenarios deveoped for the IVG were meant to look at special timbers as well - this did not occur.

Bob Smiths socio-economic impact study promised a demand study for special timbers - this did not occur.

And the final nail in the coffin that admits those involved in this sham peace process have no idea about the special timbers industry requirements is:

a. the amount of area set aside for special timbers (37,954 ha); and

b. the presence of clause 9 in the agreement which basically admits they don’t know how much timber is required by the sector and a study is required.

What a joke - let’s lock up all the special timber areas bar a small amount then figure out how much timber we need. All other industry sectors looked at under this process had the their timber requirements assessed before reserves were decided so why not the special timber industry?

What happens when the demand study shows that the required amount of timber cannot be sustainably harvested from allocated areas? Will reserves be un-locked to allow harvesting to support the industry? I sincerely doubt that but it is surely a question that should have been answered by this multi million dollar process we have just been through.

Clause 4 states that until the special timbers needs are determined, special timbers will be supplied as per the FT special timbers strategy i.e. at least 12,500 cubic metres per annum. The area of forest set aside in the 2010 special timbers strategy (to produce 12,500 cubes per annum sustainably) was just under 100,000 ha. Bit different than 37,954ha and the intensity of logging in this smaller area to achieve similar volumes will be much higher. Good outcome - apparently…......

Another interesting point in the agreement is that there will be no FSC certification sought for the Specialty Craft and Timber Zone - why is this??

So in the end I think that the specialty timber sector has the right to be unhappy with this deal. It does nothing to secure a strong and vibrant future for the industry that is wanted by all political parties and can only damage it.

Posted by Andrew Denman on 23/11/12 at 05:10 PM

It’s a reliable guide: when “forest peace deal is signed” and Bob Brown smiles- the timber industry has been shafted.

Posted by TGC on 23/11/12 at 05:16 PM

#43 If what you say is true and Liberal politicians are posting in support of this hate mongering they prove that the Liberals in Tasmania are a complete moral vacuum—no, let me make that The Liberal Party full stop. Today I read an article in IA where one young liberal is now advocating child labour (for welfare dependant families only) as young as 8 to lift them out of Poverty. Unbelievebly this Young Liberal had either the ignorance or class hatred to say “Work will set them free” (Auschwitz or Dachau anyone?) This is the mentality of the modern Liberal party. Liberal Politicians have now become an actual menace to society

Posted by moo on 23/11/12 at 06:33 PM

Are we all forgetting something?

What about TCA? - hasn’t signed yet and a good chance they wont but the deal is being portrayed as a done deal…...

Posted by Andrew Denman on 23/11/12 at 07:35 PM

Moo go the Facebook page i named in #43.

The quotes are 100% accurate copied from the FB page. The comments have also been captured in screen shots and circulating on FB. I dare say the TT editor has been sent a few.

We are looking at a florid expression of the dark, ugly redneck underbelly of Tasmania.

Leading industry figures, lobbyists & business people post on this page regularly. We are not merely talking about a few young loudmouth bogans.

Go to the ABC News Tas link under TT links & see Wilton swearing at Brown outside Parly House yesterday. Lets just say there were some very unimpressed journalists.

The Facebook page in question is the organisational hub of the recent pro logging protests we have seen in Tasmania.

Facebook = Theory. Public action = Practice.

This is why the comments are frightening, should be taken seriously and investigated.

Wilton and her supporters are openly planning an assualt on the December 9 “Rally For The Tarkine”

in Hobart. There is a very angry, ill tempered discussion on the page about this. The Rally organisers are aware as i believe are the police.

Posted by Linda on 23/11/12 at 07:59 PM

A few of the reasons why I am opposed to the agreement and will continue to fight for a forestry industry that is conducted transparently, sustainably, equitably and in an economically realistic and socially beneficial way:

The Premier has not resiled from her assertion that this agreement is all about clearing the way for a pulp mill.

The Legislative Council looks as if they will knock it back anyway, and even if they don’t, the Libs will tear it up if (probably when) they get into office.

Those who can’t (or won’t) see past the saving of the high conservation value forests as an aim (and this includes most Greens politicians and Wilderness Society members) are indirectly contributing to economic and ecological disaster.

The key issue of the conversion of Tasmanian trees (whether exotic plantations or native forests) into short-lived paper products instead of lasting, carbon-retaining products, has not been addressed.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 23/11/12 at 08:47 PM

Linda at #43, Paul Harris has form at making desparaging remarks about people, as Greg Hall (and perhaps others in the MLC), would be able to confirm with respect to comments the said Paul has made about myself. Nothing more can be said due to legal constraints and future activity.

Posted by John Powell on 23/11/12 at 08:58 PM

#51. Andrew Denman. Hello Andrew, I do understand your dilemma, far more so I would like to say, than the institution that is charged with supplying each of the Speciality Timbers to the various frequent users of these particular forest species.
There are those who are in lockstep support to whatever the result per annum might happen to be, good or bad, the word is that this GBE is on top of its pledges and its responsibilities that arise each calendar year via the operations of this GBE of Forestry Tasmania.
All their nonsense about World’s Best Practices and that the FPA’s regulatory mechanisms are working just fine, when in fact we know this is pure window dressing or alternately just gilding of the lily.
The past orders for Celery-top Pine that would have had to be acknowledged by F/T in times past, would suggest that this volume is still relevant to each succeeding year’s requirements of this and other special species timber.
But no, instead they have chosen to ignore that sector, and as their past practices have shown, it is their willingness to bulldoze and burn all else that is not acceptable for either Ta Ann’s veneer purposes, nor acceptable for saw-log construction grade logs, or that can be wood-chipped, is simply destroyed by fire.

From a business acuity perspective it seeems that only bulk supply orders are now being attended too, so as I have stated earlier, the common thems seems to be, ‘bugger the boat-builders, bugger the apiarists and anyone else that pokes their nose into our(?) forests,’ they can all piss orf!
Unfortunately this appears as though ‘this as good as it gets nowadays,’ as for the much hyped Speciality Timbers that the noising George Harris fought so long and hard for, this now appears to have flopped into the too hard basket, either that or the brains trust people who are salaried to deliver the goods, are just plain disinterested, or maybe have even lost the plot.

The people of Tasmania and the local builders of boats and the many other things would, I am quite sure, like to see the benefits of that which Frank Strie and I think Peter Brenner, speak so frequently of.
Tis the best resort under these circumstances as described in the above.

What a suggestion Karen, that sounds very interesting.
But where in the IGA process is there any detail about the “how to”?
What “farmed tree” species would you suggest would “make sense?”
More Shining Gum (E. nitens) or Tassie Blue Gum pulpwood trees, or more of the Radiata Pine (Pinus radiata) bulk species?

What about plantations madeup of other exotic conifers like the Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Douglas Fir/ Oregon (Pseudotsuga menziesii), other Fir ssp, or any Cedars, more Cypresses, or a blend there of?
Or what about non-flammable Oaks (say quercus robur, or other quercus ssp.) or what about valuable timbers such as Maple ssp or other deciduous, fire resistant species?
Look, the IGA before us is a (less than half baked) unrealistic course of action.
Just as Jan Davis said yesterday morning on ABC Radio to Leon Compton, problematic right from the start, now well more than two years ago.
In reality, we are being ignored Karen, simply ignored and avoided, as it all would be typical out of fear, that our involvement would potentially lead to results, in real change, say in a third option, a third way!?

Posted by Frank Strie on 24/11/12 at 12:51 AM

#43 This material is truly appalling, but sadly unsurprising.

In the fair state of Tasmania, elected politicians like Harriss and Ferguson can publicly align themselves with the basest, most disgusting bigotry, secure in the knowledge that it will enhance their standing with a poorly educated, intolerant constituency.

They have no shame, or even common decency, but they do have enormous power. The extent of Mr Harriss’ influence is especially troubling. The last thing Tasmania needs is an intensely parochial, politically and socially reactionary politician who inexplicably holds its parliamentary ‘house of review’ in his thrall. Particularly when that esteemed institution has an anachronistic level of power - well in excess of that enjoyed by similar entities, and clearly in inverse proportion to the talent and understanding demonstrated by its members.

Paul most likely has at least two more 6-year LegCo terms up his sleeve, and as long as he continues to charm his upper house compatriots - both the ladies and the blokes - we’re in for more of the same vile, socially and morally debilitating bullshit.

It almost makes you want to cry.

Posted by Observer on 24/11/12 at 01:23 AM

re 55, of course it would never occur to a bunch of sanctimonious self absorbed zealots that their actions could, if repeated often enough, provoke even a saint to rage. Nah, of course it would not.

The forestry industry has its problems and it has been run into the ground by its public administrators, and some of the players need investigating, but demanding an end to native forest logging, completely and for all time is not addressing those issues. That the industry is even talking to the zealots shows how much the industry wants to avoid looking at its problems. The extreme greenie agenda has been seen by the middle ground for the zealotry it is and as always, the middle ground have condemned the zealotry. As always the extremists on the side opposite the zealots have taken that condemnation as license to act up and if given the opportunity, act out.

The question, being answered here by supporters of the IGA is: will the zealots give them the opportunity by continuing their push for their greenie nirvana at the expense of present and future opportunity to use a renewable resource?

Given they are zealots, self absorbed and sanctimonious, one has to bet on a yes.

Sad, really.

(I note that the condemnation from the middle ground is comming from my green, red and blue friends in equal measure. I also note that I saw exactly the same thing play out in NZ when the economic zealot, Roger Douglas, attempted to privatise Maori lands gifted by the tribes to the crown. In that case there was a rule book and it was followed, and a peacable, workable resolution was reached.(the Waitangi Tribunal and its outcomes) In this case we are pretending the rule book does not exist, and playing an entirely different game to avoid aknowledging the existance of rules. What should happen is a commision of inquiry to sort out what went wrong, what can be sustained and what NEEDS to be reserved, and what lessons are there to be learned, all of this in public with input open to all. Absent that this cluster fuck will roll on with its attendant human and financial costs until the zealots on both sides have turned to dust. Hopefully at that point there will be something to salvage. Real political leadership would call the inquiry, deal with the outcome, however damaging, and implement and enforce its recommendations. It is what will eventually happen, the sooner it does the less loss, pain, damage and distress will be suffered by all. This is why Bryan Green and Lara Giddings were given such a rough ride in Burnie, everyone knows they have no intent of bringing this to an end.)

Posted by Simon Warriner on 24/11/12 at 06:15 AM

#46. If the leg Co has enough smarts to see the future and agree to the legislation and if the bureaucracy doesn’t stuff up the forest area removed from production will become available for carbon trading when the government ratifies Clause 4 of the Kyoto protoco supposedly in 2015-16. the the income from capturing and sinking carbon in the forests will have to be risk managed and part of that is lmiting the impact of fire. Changes to the planning laws may reduce risk and the costs you mention will be met in the usual way as we saw with the several disaters Australia has seen this decade.

The biggest risk factor is not change of use it is more of the same in the energy sector globally changing the climate and thius increasing the risk.

Posted by phill Parsons on 24/11/12 at 08:01 AM

#11 Four decades of waste has seen specialty timbers decline. Blaming the messenger only avoids rectifying the error.

Posted by phill Parsons on 24/11/12 at 08:04 AM

In the wash-up to the announcement of the forestry peace deal, two things have become crystal clear. 1: For all sides this seems a highly-qualified advance, but it is an advance. 2: That the only people who wish to wreck this deal are not Jenny Weber and Peg Putt and the groups they represent, but Will Hodgman and the Liberal Party. It is the Liberal Party that should be put on trial by the media and asked: Why?

Posted by Stihl Here on 24/11/12 at 09:14 AM

The peace agreement will be thrown out by the majority of the MLC’s, and who could blame them as the deceptive State government is leading itself up the garden path to ONLY to suit a Green agenda and definitely not a broader community one.
However be warned the ex Mayor of Hobart now as a fringe dwelling Townie, MLC Valentine is a likely dissenter hanging onto Green sentiment!
Every fool knows that the Greens will stop at nothing till ALL native forest harvesting stops hence allowing a series of catastrophic wildfires to finishing off any future potential higher value for forested area along with a further decline in business and general community confidence.
Bring on March 2014 before divided Tasmania brings further community disorder originating from the Greens and their fringe dwelling supporters.
BE WARNED, Putt, Brown, Webber and their rag tag supporters are ready to destroy everything our parents and families stood for within this state.
Current Labor Green politics under Premier Lara Gidding and her grinning puppet Forestry Minister Bryan Green is following closely along the lines of a destabilised government.

Posted by Robin Halton on 24/11/12 at 11:02 AM

Hello Frank #59, I agree with you: the IGA is not the ultimate “third way” of native forest management you wisely espouse. But can’t it be - a valuable starting point - something to be supported at this time?

As I said in the last post, it makes sense to guide people to manage native forests well; to keep them healthy and to source timber - blackwoods, eucalypts, beeches and pines, etc. respectfully - not just waste swathes of ancient biodiversity for a valueless, quick buck. They should be guided to farm trees well, as well as any other diverse crop grown for diverse markets, suited to the land on which they’re grown.

The evolution of people’s consciousness that you aspire to takes time. So far we have experienced a painful war, born out of extremes, of action and reaction. A ceasefire is needed. The wisdom to achieve balance is needed. Hopefully the swing of the pendulum will come back to the middle, sooner or later. But will it then be too late for Tasmania’s HCV forests?

So can’t we take this chance to have some breathing space from the decimation of HCV forests, and to build on the learning and understanding gained from this two-year process? We can’t afford otherwise: no good will come from continued wholesale greed, or fortified anger.

The balance found in long-term, better management must surely begin with compromise, which, although not the ideal for some people right now, is what we have just been handed from sector representatives in the IGA. I appreciate the effort they have put into it, and look forward to prospects beyond it.

Posted by Karen on 24/11/12 at 11:27 AM

#64’
The answer is the puppeteer and Liberal headkicker one Erich Abetz.

This is the Green Hater who would not allow Hodgman to accept Government in coalition with the Greens after the last election.

As the Minister for Deforestation and MIS scams in the last Liberal government Abetz oversaw the free flow of funds from the logging industry into Liberal Party coffers.

Over 150,000 dollars from Gunns alone of which 50,000 appeared once Abetz was made the relevant Minister.

These corporate gifts were repaid by a never ending flow of our money gifted by Federal (Liberal) and State (Labor) taxpayers via our political Parties into this a rapidly collapsing industry.

This flow of money has never stopped from the time of the Royal Commission which brown paper bagged the one time Liberal Premier Robin Gray to the present.

This money which travels in both directions has ensured that the lid has been kept on the buried skeletons created by the Liberal Party through its involvement with forestry in this State.

The Greens are hated by both Labor and the Liberals for they do not play the logging industry game, a game that is played in this State for party political gain and never for the common good.

Posted by john hawkins on 24/11/12 at 11:37 AM

#65 erroneously conflates a political party with a movment of organizations and individuals.

Even if all conservationists agreed, crossed their hearst and hoped to die nothing prvents new opponents arising from the reality that the forest industry creates.

After all without the impacts on the natural environment of forestry activites what would there be to protest.

Posted by phill Parsons on 24/11/12 at 12:17 PM

#65 Robin your hysteria adds nothing to the weight of your arguments. Calling the Greens fringe-dwellers when they attract >10% of the vote (versus 2% of Tasmanians employed in forestry) seems to me to be pointedly divisive and inflammatory.

As for the Greens being ‘ready to destroy everything our parents and families stood for within the state’ - did your parents and families stand for the genocide against the Tasmanian Aboriginals, or the extinction of the Thylacine?

As the saying goes, turn it up mate!

(N.B. This comment should in no way be construed as supportive of the Greens and their Marxist social agenda)

Posted by Merk on 24/11/12 at 12:29 PM

#65. Robin I think you are trying to play the part of a crystal-ball gazer with your talk of the imminent destruction by fire of all things growing in Tasmania?
Something you seem to never understand is that which caused the protesters to become so determined in the 1st instance to halt the insane bastard wood-chipping of vast tracts of our ancient forests, that ultimately would only create a benefit to corporate interests, at the same time denying any benefits there may have been in it for the Tasmanian people?

Any business institution that can please itself as to its pursuits, that has nil whatsoever constraints upon it, has no regulatory responsibilities, is never threatened with any censures, that continues to destroy millions upon millions of tonnes of Tasmania’s flora, then has the outrageous audacity to expect enormous amounts of taxpayer funded Federal grants State government grants, ‘most of which is pissed up against the wall due to the volumes of the sloth thinking of management,’ then its financial support to the decadent luxuriant gravy train ride by a board of past and present do nothing board directors, say this logging entity deserves the most ferocious boot in its ill-boding collective arse!!!
Now Robin do you believe that I have overstated the circumstances that caused the environmental conscious and honest believing protest groups to so determinedly pursue their urgent quest?
Your hallowed delusional logging industry heroes were not doing much for anybody bar their highly inflated selves, yet at the same time leaving an enormous wake of waste, wood-smoke and environmental destruction in their wake.
The ignorance, the negligence, the non-compliance,
the violence, the colluding government ministerial malfeasance, add to that the extreme offence that has befallen the Tasmanian people during the mandates and controls of the following, Lennon, Gay, Abetz, Gray, Amos, Green, Drielsma, Llewellyn, Kloeden, Edwards, Jefferys and each of the Forestry Tasmania past and present do nothing dilatory directors, still the list can go on and on.
Then there is this issue of this latest Face-book page, this that carries all of its highly offensive remarks from opposition government ministers and pro-logging persons, then those other ‘non-logging industry’ stinko’s that are being led on by the ludicrous Abetz Liberals who himself would be panting in his excitements to be reading such vile abusive and grossly offensive written materials?
That this is the workings of what may be this State’s new government leadership pack, with its people-haters and poisonous ministerial scorpions, then those others among the Abetz inspired Tasmanian Liberal Party, of which in itself should be seen in the light of its possible criminally offensive behaviours?
How can this be the way of things here in Tasmania?

Robin, feel free to confide with me of your desirous friendships and the support you hold to any of these above complicit dishonest devil-worshippers among the aforementioned?
Then if you please,your thoughts on the above rather specific references?

Thanks,

William Boeder.

Posted by William Boeder on 24/11/12 at 12:54 PM

Mr Warriner #61 Comment challenged and deleted.

Posted by Linda on 24/11/12 at 03:24 PM

#65 ‘Putt, Brown, Weber and their rag tag supporters are ready to destroy everything our parents and families stood for within this state’

Robin, are you are able to articulate exactly what your parents and family stood for in Tasmania?

And, why does all community disorder stem from the Greens? I am not a Greens supporter - they are one-dimensional political pretenders, but you credit them with far more influence than they really have.

Are Tasmanians really being dictated to by a bunch of green, foul-smelling, faggot fucks? Are they that submissive and ineffectual? Or are greenies nothing more than a convenient scapegoat for a whole bunch of generations-old failings?

Posted by Bronwyn Williams on 24/11/12 at 04:55 PM

On 7 August the Australian reported that a proposed deal protecting about 525,000ha of native forests while still delivering an annual sawlog harvest of more than 140,000 cubic metres had failed after revised data and modelling on wood supply showed it was not possible to deliver the bottom lines of both sides:

Given that the new agreement (which I have yet to see in the public domain) purports to produce almost the exact same outcome this demands serious questions from all the signatories.

Posted by PB on 24/11/12 at 05:03 PM

Robin,
your rants are getting even more extreme and irrelevant. I am sorry that FT is no longer looking at you as a replacement for the Bobster.

Just a quick reminder….the IGA was I believe initiated by the forestry industry because they were rapidly going down the gurgler. The same industry SUPPORTS the agreement (maybe not aka, JackL,William H,and TGC)

This is not a GREEN agenda Robin, this is something that the industry requires and I suspect the bulk of Australians support and is dictated by market forces that FT has been unable to understand for the past ??? years.

And if the agreement fails the forestry industry will be DEAD! Forever!

If the MLC reject this bill then they will rank with those that voted against suffrage in the 19th century and will be forever remembered as the Jurassics that they appear to be.

Paul/Greg please note, for legal sanctity, that I have not called either of you a dinosuar in this post!!!

ET phoning home.

Posted by John Powell on 24/11/12 at 06:00 PM

It is the publication of posts like Bronwyn’s #72 that make TT worth reading. I would respectfully ask the Editor to please disregard any censorious objections, however PC, to such crispy expressions from Ms Williams!

Posted by Merk on 24/11/12 at 07:40 PM

Merk (#69), if you can convince me that the Greens in Tasmania have a “Marxist social agenda” then I might think more seriously about voting for them or, more likely, about helping them to implement it through extra-parliamentary means.

I realise that this is off-topic, but I would be fascinated to see your explanation of what constitutes such an agenda and why you are so opposed to it.

Mind you, I fully support the comments you make in that post. Green bashing is no substitute for sound policy, but it surely gets more votes.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 24/11/12 at 10:04 PM

Linda, 71, can you please revisit your primary school comprehension lessons and tell readers where, exactly, I condoned either violence or homophobia. The closest I came was to call its likely occcurence as a result of ceaseless provocation sad.
What I did do was point out that, as always, actions provoke reactions and that zealots have a tendency to ignore the possible, and often probable, reactions. I did not say those reactions were justified, but I do say they are predictable. Pardon me for being realistic about humanity’s flaws.
Perhaps if you opened the door of your politically correct world you would discover that turds do not have clean ends, and that when people lose everything they sometimes lose control. When you are agitating to further that loss it is way beyond stupid not to expect some of their aggro to be directed your way. It may have escaped your attention, being as how you are busy getting the forests locked away but a lot of people from that industry and others related are in dire financial straits. For many a lifetime’s work has been for nought. Ponder that a while.

Posted by Simon Warriner on 25/11/12 at 05:21 AM

#74 John Powell, The Greens seized upon the opportunity and made the IGA with their agenda aiming at grabbing as much land from State Forest for permanant Reservation.
The remaining industry players are defending their rights to remain viable. FT despite some of its management mistakes, it deserves to maintain presence to protect all of existing State Forest against wildfire and subsequent degradation as well as rural community values as it has always done.
Regardless of a downturn in the industry all State Forest will be required for its expressed purpose of providing a suitable mainly hardwood based timber resource long after we are dead and gone.
As a practised former STF with FT I can assure you the mingling of new reserves in and among large chunks of State Forest will create all sorts of land management problems with the Green
influence playing a greater role over the Parks and Wildlife Service land management.
Lets make it very, very clear, any new Reserves created within existing State Forest MUST be managed as Forest Reserves and NOT be another authority.

Posted by Robin Halton on 25/11/12 at 07:21 AM

How come a statement like ‘green, foul-smelling, faggot fucks’ gets past the moderators while my idea of Tasmania entering the computer age by developing malware and ransomware was blocked?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 25/11/12 at 07:56 AM

Thank you PB [comment #73] - the eNGOs have maintained a very close media liaison with Matthew Denholm of The Australian newspaper. They have used that correspondent and that conduit for leaking material out of “Chatham House rules” roundtable discussions for several years. Tery Edwards and FIAT and the forestry signatories have done the same thing; leaking sensitive information to the local papers and the ABC.

It’s a game that’s operated since the talks began.

Money and influence are the critical imperatives to get a message out - obviously the eNGOs found out how much media control happens at the level of the local newspapers through direct interference by this Government and influential Tas Inc. operatives. Even the good old ABC in Hobart can kill off stories or give selective coverage.

Congratulations to Leon Compton and Brad Markum for their research and follow up. Leon’s interviews with direct, concise questioning of the Signatory individuals and the various political minders has perehaps been the most authentic way to understand the dissembling that’s gone one over the last 30 months. An appreciative ‘thanks’ to you both.

I don’t think Leon has succeeded in getting a ‘down & dirty’ interview with Green leader, Nick McKim on the forestry deal though.

PB, I too searched fot the Tasmanian Forest Agreement Bill on the Parliament website and have yet to successfully get a copy of the version that was passed in the Lower House last Friday.

Does it exist on the Tasmanian Greens website?

What is the detail on the exact HCV areas to be protected?

Posted by David Obendorf on 25/11/12 at 08:26 AM

Does anyone explain why the State and Federal Governments, after years of treating conservationist like flies at their barbie, have been sponsoring for over two years talks between loggers and greenies, none of whom are either disinterested, expert, or legislatively empowered?

The Abetz Party, alternatively, is seemingly offering the State Forest in a liquidation sale to the only market remaining open to pirates -China.

The LibLabs are a single endemic species of pernicious parasite.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 25/11/12 at 08:31 AM

Let’s please back down from comments such as two in here that are brimming with strident hostility rationalizing if not overtly encouraging violence.

Posted by Bob Kendra on 25/11/12 at 08:39 AM

David Obendorf 80. The Examiner has a map of the new forest reserves here:

With 13% of Tasmania entering reserves (if the enviros are well behaved) added to the 37% already in World Heritage or National Parks then 50% of Tasmania’s land mass cannot be logged. I have not said ‘locked-up’ because it’s a Liberal dog whistle.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 25/11/12 at 09:39 AM

#73 PJB thank you for bringing to the attention of the TT folks your alertness re predicatable sawlog volumes incompatibility versus the Greens/ENGO’s “fairyland” Reserve dream totalling 572,000ha of State Forest.
Recent modelling data /IGA process has drawn out FT to be up front publically (for the first time?) by obtaining a benchmark figure to base the future of hardwood sawmilling.
I can remember poor old Hans Drielsma dribbling and drooling over the data trying to hold together FT’s impeccable reputation, eventually thanks to Glenn Britton of FIAT for leading the way for his factual analysis of what constitutes as sawlogs in real terms!
Down the tube goes the eucalypt plantation being an instant hit for the sawmilling industry, the only believer left being Kim Booth by using high quality E nitens pulp mill feed stock for lower value flat paks furniture.
I am rather muffed by the recent rumblings by Terry Edwards who appears to be looking at peace on the horizon? Poor Terry has had enough?
I think all of the round table enthusiasts by now had a gutful passing it onto a blindfolded and gagged Green Labor Premier who has retired her options for the broader Tasmanian community by handing over her problem for the Legislative Council to resovle!
The sustainable yield figures speaks for itself, there is insufficient forest area for conversion to extensive reservation.

Posted by Robin Halton on 25/11/12 at 10:04 AM

does anyone know where the actual text of the almost-signed forest agreement can be found?

Posted by TassieGold on 25/11/12 at 10:26 AM

#76. Robin Halton, I note your non reply to my relevant questions, you now seem to be following the same line as Mark Poynter by completely ignoring specific questions related to those of his own dubious claims and assertions.

That the ENGOs were invited to attend the ball-breakers round table-talks that were to have no political interdiction’s or provocations.

I note Paul (Thuggo) Lennon was especially called in by the pro-logging majority who attended these talks ‘to hammer out a type of agreement that could be ignored by the likes of your mates at Forestry Tasmania?’
This forced agreement was to become a Statement of Principles that were engineered to include the prospect of a Pulp Mill being constructed somewhere in Tasmania.
Now enter the supposed non-interested State government, eg; Lara telling the people that this whole construct was to secure a means of acceptance and support for the Gunns Ltd desire to erect their poxious toxic excuse for destroying ever more of our forests.
(No native Forest will be sourced by them for processing Native Forest into their pulp products, though this claim did not rule out the burning of Native Forest sourced fuel for their heat energy needs, ‘nor that may would not set up a new registered business entity that would deliver Native Forest timber to their premises for other uses.)
Forestry Tasmania had strategically declared they were non-participants to the above processes, yet during the entirety of these talks that rowdy FIAT speak person, Terry Edwards was known to be acting wholly for the interests of Forestry Tasmania.
This non-participation was designed to allow Forestry Tasmania to ignore the recommendations from this series of events, such as the calls for a moratorium to halt their ongoing rampant depredations and degradations.
Now as is typical of the pro-logging Forestry Tasmania worshipping, minority of Greenie bashers, the outcome of all the discussions and the construction of the Statement of principles was dreamed up by the Greenies?
Come come Robin, that all of this proposed lock-up of X hectares of HCV Forests was architected by the Greenies to shut down the forests has to be a bit of a joke, surely.
Though what was sought by them was, to try and halt the huge volumes of our forests from going the way of the non-State revenue reimbursing Wood-chippers, the non-revenues arising from the non-profitable Ta Ann Veneer Mill operations, then that of the non-revenue returning cheap logs to China folly.

Yep them Greenies are wrecking this State of Tasmania by wanting to protect the forests from the ineptitude’s and profitless slylock contractual dealings that Forestry Tasmania has a lust for engaging therein.
Nice try Robin, but no cigar.

Posted by William Boeder on 25/11/12 at 11:20 AM

My view is that it is pointless to comment on all this until the details of the legislation actually passed are known. Then there are many questions for which I’ll be searching for the answers. Will this be merely a divvying up of the land among contending interests, or will it represent true reform of how the state’s forests are regarded and managed? Will it, for instance, ensure adequate resources for the maintenance and management of those areas put aside for protection? Will this protection be in perpetuity? How will this be guaranteed, given Tasmania’s history regarding such things? Upon what basis are the boundaries being drawn around both the areas slated for protection and those for logging? Will they make ecological sense or will they be determined by expediency and politics? Will forestry attitudes and practices be modernised (e.g. proper independent environmental impact and heritage studies prior to logging, limitations on the gradients logged, regulation of chemical use, actual protection of watersheds, and true monitoring and mitigation of effects, etc. etc.) or will they remain those of the Gilded Age of the century before last? Will there be more transparency and accountability, proper mechanisms for appeal and adequate enforcement of regulations? Will there in fact be any meaningful regulations or will it continue to be, effectively, anything goes as far as Forestry Tasmania and its cronies are concerned on the parts allocated to them? Will Forestry Tasmania be reformed, if it continues to exist, or will it still operate as a gang of unaccountable robber-barons? Will triple line accounting apply to forestry and conservation matters? How much public money will continue to pour into propping up the forestry industry (my view is that the industry, except for low-impact selective logging of specialty timbers for crafting of high-end products, will still die, only its death throes will be on a smaller scale if what we hear of the agreement is true).

It’s as much a matter of policies, procedures, and management as it is of simply parcelling out the land, so much to Jack and so much to Jill. Most importantly, it’s a matter of the fundamental principles underlying what is done and the reasons for doing it. But then, the later are not something Tasmania has ever been big on. Not surprising given that over half the population struggle to read the phone book and most of the remainder are trapped in a frenzy of apathy.

Absolutely correct and so they should…and the ENGO negotiators allowed them to defend their rights and come out with a respectable outcome.

This was not asisted by FIAT’s continue dummy spits assisted by Dr Amos, the Bobster, Glen Britton etc etc - the Jurassics.

Think about what might have been if there was no outcome. For example TaAnn would have left, and may still do if the Jurassics in the MLC vote this down.

If the MLC do not support this restructuring their legacy will be long remembered by those foresters who did not benefit from the $100 million still to flow from the Feds.

Posted by John Powell on 25/11/12 at 05:10 PM

Ok all you TT posters come along and be a presence at a Family Friendly Rally Parliament Lawns 12 noon 9th December (yes it’s a Sunday)
Key Note Speakers: Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Vica Bayley, Scott Jordan Aboriginal Elder Dyan Summers and Greg Irons of Tarkine Trails. Come along as a matter of importance. Speakers will inform you of the immediate threats of open cut mining to the globally significant Tarkine Wilderness, what you can do to stop it and outline the Summer in the Tarkine campaign.

#88 John, the agreement if passed by the MLC’s would probably entail Federal buyouts for sawmillers and “ouch” Ta Ann. Included are contractors (harvesting and silvicultural), their employees, affected local craftspeople and wooden boat builders!
The pointless side of the deal is place existing State Forest into permanent Reserves excluded from any future commercial use.
Leaving Tasmania without sufficient timber to draw upon in the future makes no sense to me! What would make sense is for a big shake up in the higher ranks of FT, now is the time to get the timber resource on a sustainable footing, now is the time for the State government to enforce it!
Forget the Greens, they will continue their nonsense regardless of what the signatories have decided anyway!
The State needs to think seriously about its overall summer fire fighting capability especially as FT is facing restructure, manpower, equipment incl heavy machinery need to be considered it would be most unreasonable to expect Fire Service volunteers to spread their already stretched responsibilities outside the protection of lives and property outside their normal juristriction.
FT protect timber values by controlling fire, Parks protect natural values and that can mean the frequent use of allowing fire to take its natural course, timber value is not considered.
I cannot possibly conceive the loss of commercial based forest at all, it makes no sense as Tasmania already has a sufficiently comprehensive, adequate and representative Reserve system in place, one of the most significant advancements of having a Tasmanian RFA from 1997-2017.
The MLC’s should be pushing for better management of what we already have got between now and 2017 when the RFA will be subjected to a complete review which could decide the fate of the useless eucalypt plantation estate too!

Posted by Robin Halton on 25/11/12 at 09:27 PM

re 82, which posts, Bob?

Posted by Simon Warriner on 25/11/12 at 09:29 PM

For Family Friendly read - come and waste your kids time listening to stuff that they don’t care about and you’ve heard a hundred times before.

Posted by mikey on 26/11/12 at 02:32 AM

# Pilko agree with you. Hall & Harriss will call for more Select Committees
to delay proceedings. This decision will show their true Liberal colours
(if the Gay Marriage Bill vote didn’t 14-1).
Sue Smith stated in media and on ABC that MLC’s would not look kindly
on being forced to consider such a Bill any sooner, nothing will be rammed
through the House (they only sit 39 days!). Ironic her and Liberal colleagues
did not use the same criteria with the pollitical corrupt pulp mill legislation and
Section 11. If IGA deal fails how can LegCo’s use ploy FT will trade its
way out of Bankruptcy? FT tried that (AG Report 2011), increase production
went up to 50% and losses went accordingly, also stated FT needed cash
injection of $200-$250million dollars to survive. Are all Tas. (Shareholders)
going to sit back and let another multi billion dollar injection of funds to this
iniquitous GBE? Bryan Green should liquidate FT, that would cancel out all
contracts and bring FT under ministerial control and restructure.. FT is a
registered company, could someone please advise if shareholders can petition
Supreme Court and have FT wound up for trading insolvent? Can be done with
private Company? The IGA’s on again, off again for last 6 months, it would not
surprise if Lara and Bryan are compliant in this plot. Still ‘weak’ Will and
‘Scooter mouth’ Peter maintain that FT is sustainable and viable, what B/S. At
same time country sawmillers go without.
#17 In 1990/1, when in New Zealand with 5 aldermen from LCC - having sticky
beak re amalgamation. We observed North & South Island had undulating peaks
(sizeable hills), of pine plantations. Thousands and thousands of hectacres
in maturing trees. The wharves were flat out loading logs for export,although the size
of the trees was not very large. The climate in NZ allows a far greater turnover in
maturing trees, than our cold climate. Same in many other countries worldwide.
How are we ever going to compete price wise? On BBC radio the other night they stated
Chille has thousands of hectacres of Tas. Blackwood trees half grown, the seed sent
by FT. Where are our Blackwood plantations? Perhaps George Harris might know.
FT probably made more profit from the seeds than selling woodchip and trees.
Basil Fitch.

Posted by Basil Fitch on 26/11/12 at 07:51 AM

Never has so much been written about so few who require so many taxpayer dollars.

Posted by Richard Barton on 26/11/12 at 10:31 AM

#89 Vica Bayleys decision to speak at the Rally For The Tarkine on December 9 is a curious one.

Unbiased observers would agree that apart from the odd foray into the public domain, the TWS protest voice in Tasmania has been vastly scaled back since the inception of the forest negotiations 2 years ago.
Yet Vica Bayley & TWS have curiously found their mojo at what looks likely to be one of the largest environmental protests to hit Hobart in years - 3 days before a group of apparently volatile Tasmanian legislators are set to decide the fate of the bill that Vica & TWS have devoted themselves to for 2 long years.

Its a curious time for TWS to find their protest voice.

I’m scratching my head wondering why now TWS, at 1 minute to midnight, at the most sensitive moment of these 2 year negotiations 3 days out from the big vote, have chosen to rub their opponents faces in it. What is it about this Rally that has bought on a departure from recent TWS strategy? That so urgently requires Vica Bayley to speak & risk all they have worked for?

The cynic might suggest that TWS must speak at what looks set to be a very large turnout so the TWS buckets can go around the big crowd & much needed funds flow to those empty TWS coffers.

Theres no denying times have been tough financially for Tasmania’s biggest ENGO and anyone who has been close to big ENGO’s understand how conscious of and practical they can be around fundraising strategy.

Oh Rick you cant say that! Thats terrible!

Really?

How in all seriousness is Vica & TWS expecting MLC’s & also the local media to react to Vica standing on a stage in front of Parliament house calling for the “summer of protest”?

What exactly is Vica planning to say?

Is Vica perhaps going to stand up and tell everyone TWS have backflipped on the Tarkine after having a long chat to Phil & Lyndon and that everyone should go home because of the inferred ‘No Protests” clause in the Forests Deal?

Is Vica going to tell the gathered greenie throng - “I’ll decide who protests in Tasmania and under what circumstances they protest”.

“Do as i say not as i do!

Maybe TWS have sought a reciprical arrangement with industry signatories that they ‘play dead’ on our protest and we’ll play dead on yours? Maybe thats how this whole durability thing is going to work. Secret agreements between signatories on protests.

Are TWS not anticipating the cacophony of howls led by Hodgman, Gutwein, Harris, Davis etc & opponents of the forest deal in the ensuing hours & days after the Dec 9 Rally?

Do TWS not anticipate that MLC’s phones will run hot and with greenie haters saying…......... “see i told you so…..that TWS Tarkine Rally proves our misgivings about those uncompromising environmentalists…...The ink isnt even dry on the agreement & The Wilderness Society have already started…See now they are moving on to the mining industry”....ra ra ra.

Do TWS think there arent any undecided MLCs?

Is TWS not concerned their presence at the Rally for The Tarkine could push those MLC’s the wrong way, thus losing everything TWS have worked for in the last two years? Or is Bayleys appearance at the December 9 Rally an admission by TWS that they dont think the bill has any chance of passing the LegCo? Or is it something more base, more pragmatic?

Before Wilderness Society supporters get defensive and preachy about my nasty inferences about TWS koala’s & buckets, the importance of free speech. (please dont unless you want an embarrassing lecture about TWS, free speech & Gunns Pulp Mill) and the values of the Tarkine my comments above are not a reflection of my personal feelings about the Tarkine issue rather a reflection of my views on TWS strategy and the strategy of the wider environmental movement.

If supporters of the Forests bill want it to pass the Upper House why wouldnt you postpone the Rally for The Tarkine take the heat of the issue until the vote is done and give undecided MLC’s another reason to support your bill?

Posted by Pilko on 26/11/12 at 11:19 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.